A Better Model for the Stone Age

By A.J.M. Osgood

The accepted model of man's origin and development is evolutionary. It assumes a
long period of time for man's development from a primitive origin to a civilized
state. Textbooks assume this model. Our popular literature is full of pictures of
developing man and cave man, allowing the artist to exercise his imagination fully.
The modern media bombards us with the idea of man's evolutionary origin, and constant
assumptions of long ages of time for man's presence on this earth backed by questionable
dating methods.

Indeed, most writers on this particular subject assume that the case is closed,
that the essential framework of man's development in what is known as the stone
age is a 'fait accompli' which has no right to be questioned, and all that is now
needed is to fill in the details of the exact timing and the steps involved.

Such assumptions, however, are questioned here. The framework will here be reasoned
to be faulty and a different model will be advanced to explain all the artifacts
available to archaeologists, yet this better model does not require the huge amounts
of time the evolutionary chronology demands, and will satisfy every reasonable argument
for a reasonable history of mankind. Its basic framework is the historical framework
of the Bible, particularly in its earlier chapters. Its basic assumption is that
the Bible is reasonable history, and so the biblical model should, therefore, be
able to explain the history of mankind.

The evolutionary model

The stone age is here defined as that period of human history prior
to the end of the Chalcolithic period in the Middle East.

The evolutionary chronology begins at approximately 2,000,000 years B.C., a date
with which the majority would agree, although some dissent could be registered.
This begins the Paleolithic period, which can be subdivided into Lower, Middle and
Upper Paleolithic:-

Lower Paleolithic 2,000,000 - 80,000 B.C.

Middle Paleolithic 80,000 - 30,000 B.C.

Upper Paleolithic 30,000 - 10,000 B.C.

Next comes the Mesolithic for which varying terms are used, namely, Epipaleolithic,
Mesolithic and Protoneolithic. The broad category of the Mesolithic occupies the
time between 10,000 and 8,000 B.C. Approximately 8,000 B.C. is the date given for
the Neolithic period which extends up to approximately 5,000 B.C. In the Levant,
the Neolithic has been divided into four periods, labelled 1 to 4. At 5,000 B.C.,
and extending onwards until 3,000 B.C. we come to the Chalcolithic or the copper
stone age, with its sub-divisions varying according to the regions.

The stone age chronology is clearly evolutionary, and occupying a period of approximately
2,000,000 years, telescopes down as we get closer to the present. It begins, by
definition, where our supposed ancestors finally developed into Homo Erectus. Homo
Erectus occupies a large portion of the Lower Paleolithic until the theoretical
development of Homo Sapiens or modern man, from which time cultural evolution is
prominent.

These supposed time cultures have to be defined and this is done by means of artifacts.
The following indicates how:

Paleolithic. Usually defined on the basis of stone implements alone.

Mesolithic. Defined in terms of stone implements and some evidence
of building, usually with either rock or clay materials.

Both these time cultures are defined as hunting-gathering cultures.

Neolithic. Defined in terms of

stone tools,

some bone tools,

early pottery development,

evidence of early farming communities, and

evidence of buildings and town structures.

Chalcolithic. Defined in terms of stone and metal tools, bone tools
and other artifacts, pottery, town and village communities and farming communities,
but particularly the introduction of metal (mostly copper) used in weapons and other
implements.

The essential ingredients in putting together such a chronology as the above are:

the assumption of a developmental history of mankind anatomically and culturally;
in other words, an evolutionary framework as a first base assumption; and

the acceptance of various dating techniques for absolute values in dating human
habitation.

Let us now look at the second of these two assumptions, the dating methods.

Dating Techniques

The scientific method can only work in the present, for it only has its artifacts
in the present with which to experiment and to investigate. Reasonable scientific
conclusions can be reached about those artifacts in the framework in which we find
them, whether these be tools or cities or fossils. However, as we extrapolate the
observations into the past we immediately step out of the scientific method and
into the area of historical assumption. This is not science but mere reasoned conclusions,
however acceptable they may be to one's reason.

It follows naturally that if the scientific method cannot work in the past and conclusions
about the past must rest on assumptions, then there is not today a dating method
that can be scientifically substantiated as being correct, for every method will
have built into it an assumption. Now when we come to the practical application
of this theory we discover in fact that this holds true. Let us look at the methods
available.

There are many methods now available for dating. We will mention the more obvious,
all of which are used to obtain an absolute date (we are not here referring to the
primary chronological arrangement or relative dating). The discussion will not be
concerned with a lengthy treatise on the subject matter as this can be found in
a number of other places.

Fossil dating.

This is largely irrelevant in this context as it is used for much greater periods
of time. However, it is used to some extent in the Lower Paleolithic strata as here
defined. Fossil dating assumes that the fossil can be dated by the rock in which
it is found, and dating of the rock in which it is found assumes that it can be
dated by the fossil which is found in it. This is, of course, circular reasoning
and is frankly invalid.

Radiometric dating.

Radiometric methods assume that we can estimate the amount of radio active substance
with which we began the time clock, a doubtful proposition, since that was a past
event. It usually assumes a constant decay rate whereas of recent years some doubt
has crept into this assumption, and in most cases it assumes no outside interference
that has altered the system.

Carbon-14 dating.

Carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) dating in particular assumes that the influx and outflow
of carbon-14 atoms into and out of the biosphere is in equilibrium. This simply
is not so, and that alone invalidates the method. Massive variations have been found.
Furthermore, all the assumptions that are made for the other radiometric methods
essentially apply here, and these make all radiometric dating methods doubtful as
scientific tests.

Dendrochronology, or tree-ring dating.

This method is assumed by many to be able to 'correct' the carbon-14 clock from
its drift of measurements. However, it assumes a number of things. Firstly, it begins
its estimation with a carbon-14 date!1
This introduces circular reasoning again. It assumes also that a tree grows a single
ring every year. This is simply not always the case, for some trees have been found
to put on multiple rings each year, while other trees have been known to put on
no rings in a particular year or for several years, particularly in dry times. It
also assumes that conditions over small areas are the same as far as climate and
soil conditions are concerned, but most gardeners can tell you that the growth potential
for any tree can vary across very small distances in any one place. This is rarely
taken into account in dendrochronology. Dendrochronology, in fact, is so shot through
with assumptions that it is surprising that anyone dared to present it as a scientific
test.1

The written word including coins.

This assumes that the author is reliable or that the details are not inaccurately
copied and can be verified.

A quick perusal of the above list will show very quickly that none of these methods
qualify as a scientific test for dating the past, for all of them rest upon
assumptions. Furthermore, these principles can be extended to other
tests and all will be shown to be based on assumptions.

What then can we say of dating the past? Simply this - the past, as far as its historical
narrative is concerned, must begin with some form of assumption and that assumption
will be determined by the particular bias or world view held. A person's bias totally
includes his religious view, which shapes his thinking about the universe in which
he lives and in which his ancestors lived, so that we see that history is built
upon three things:-

artifacts that have come down from the past,

assumptions to extrapolate those facts into the past, and

personal bias held by every historical interpreter.

These biases will be as varied as human kind.

Discussion of the supposed ape-like ancestors of man will not be dealt with here.
They have been very adequately discussed by Bowden.2

The problem with the evolutionary chronology of the ancient world presented above
is the following:

There is a rival claim to the history of the ancient world found within the pages
of Scripture, and

That particular rival view of history forms the historical framework of a legal
claim which affects the hope of the world, the faith of nations and the eternal
well-being of the human race.

So the discussion of the ancient world is taken out of the realm of merely the purely
academic into the realm of every man. It becomes relevant to every human being upon
the face of the earth. Whether the biblical creation model of origins stands the
test, as opposed to evolutionary theory, will determine the hopes and dreams of
mankind down through the ages and right throughout the vast world today. It is for
that reason that the true model of the ancient world must be determined to see which
faith can claim our allegiance, and which faith, if any, determines our destiny.
Let us then look at the second model, that is, the biblical model.

A better model - Bibilical chronology of the stone age

In order to arrive at a terminus for the so-called stone age against the biblical
narrative a number of new details must be taken into consideration. Firstly, there
should be the fact that the biblical chronology inserts a catastrophic world-wide
flood of momentous proportions that was so devastating that it is unlikely that
any artifacts of the world before that flood would be likely to be found on the
surface of the earth today. They would be buried deep within the rock strata of
the earth. Therefore, the assumption must be made that all the surface artifacts
of civilization with which the archaeologist deals must relate to mankind's history
after the great Flood of Noah which has been dated by this writer to be circ. 2,300
B.C.3 This allows us a starting point
at 2,300 B.C. The end of the stone age has been accordingly determined in the preceding
article ('The Times of Abraham', this volume) at approximately 1,870 B.C. during
the early days of Abraham's life in Palestine. The reader is warmly referred to
the discussion in that paper.

So we are left with the period from 2,300 B.C. through to 1,870 B.C. for the period
of mankind's history that the evolutionist would call the stone age. This is obviously
significantly shorter than that proposed by those who hold the former evolutionary
chronology. Such a reduction in time seemingly defies the imagination. However,
the writer wishes to demonstrate in this paper that all that is known of these earlier
ages of man can in fact be satisfactorily interpreted within that framework of time.

Following are the details of that biblical model.

Genesis 11 verses 10-32 present to us a single family genealogy of the ancient world
from the time of the great Flood until the days of Abraham. Figure 2 gives these
details in diagrammatic form, from the Flood until the early years of Abraham's
life in the land of Canaan.

Figure 2. Biblical details of the patriachs.

It can be seen that the period from the Flood until the early years of Abraham,
if we count the latter at 1,870 B.C., is approximately 432 years. However, Genesis
10:35 against the Genesis 11 genealogy suggests that the catastrophe of Babel may
well have been in the fourth generation born after the Flood, which we may approximate
to about 100 years. Therefore, we are allowing a post-Babel period until the end
of the stone age of 332 years.

The chronology here of the Massoretic text alone is accepted as valid.4

Now the biblical model, Genesis 11:1-9, tells us that the population (apparently
fairly homogeneous) had one language and they journeyed (apparently together) to
ancient Sumer. We would need to date this just before 2,200 B.C., being specifically
the date of the dispersion at Babel. Therefore, we may conclude that some of the
artifactual evidence found in Sumer may well pre-date 2,200 B.C. by a few years.

However, all the rest of the civilizations of the ancient world will have to be
seen as post-Flood and post-Babel, and therefore after 2,200 B.C. Consequently,
on the biblical model, any other civilization outside of Mesopotamia, with the possible
exception of small areas along the route between Ararat and Sumer, would have to
be dated from 2,200 B.C. until 1,870 B.C. for a stone age period, that is, for all
that is embraced within the Paleolithic to the end of the Chalcolithic, wherever
such a relative chronology can be applied satisfactorily.

Present evolutionary theory sees man's origin somewhere around the African continent
and spreading in many different directions. As far as the concept of civilization
is concerned, most would agree that the zenith of mankind's early civilization was
the early Chalcolithic cultures of Mesopotamia. From here civilization is generally
seen to have spread into many different regions.

Wherever a culture is dated as Paleolithic it is generally assumed to pre-date that
which is labelled Mesolithic, which is in turn assumed to pre-date that which is
Neolithic, which is then usually presumed to pre-date that which is Chalcolithic.
Thus the Mesolithic culture in the lowest level of Jericho would be assumed to pre-date
the Chalcolithic culture of Eridu in Mesopotamia, despite the fact that the ancients
regarded Eridu as the oldest city on earth.

This developmental type concept has rarely been seriously challenged. It is, however,
here completely challenged.

In order to understand the significance of the biblical model in relation to the
archaeological evidence of the ancient world, let us look at two phenomena as guiding
principles:

The pond ripple effect, and

The mushroom effect.

The pond ripple effect.

When a stone is thrown into the middle of a pond concentric waves pass outwards
in all directions from the catastrophic centre. This principle indicates that if
there is a catastrophe it is reasonable to suppose that from the centre of that
catastrophe, whether it be water or people, waves of effect will pass outwards in
all directions available for that movement. In the biblical model, the centre and
place of catastrophe is Sumer, southern Mesopotamia. When a population is in crisis
and is thrust outwards into a new geographical location, their first business is
to survive. They will survive by every means possible at their disposal, and cultural
niceties would be put aside until the question of survival had been completed and
sufficient time and leisure was available for them. So a population of people driven
from the centre, namely Mesopotamia, as result of some catastrophe, which included
in the biblical model the confusion of tongues and the hostilities engendered following
this, will cause people to migrate in different directions in order to find a new
place to live, free from dispute and trouble. They will use whatever is available,
whether it is stone, wood, grass or mud. They will hunt. If they have more time
they will plant crops and gather various types of food primarily in order to survive.

A society that is forced to hunt and gather because of insufficient time to plant
crops will then be called a hunter/gatherer society. It will exhibit the tools of
that trade. It is likely, therefore, in most cultures in new places, that the first
stage would be a hunter/gathering society in order to gather whatever is available
to survive and live. As they were able to come to terms with their environment,
they would begin to farm and to herd animals. It would be assumed by the archaeologists
later excavating such a site that there had been a development of culture. But this
is not necessarily the case, for this particular society would have had all that
culture available to them right from the start. The difficulties would simply have
been those of making it a reality in their environment, until sufficient leisure
allowed them to do so.

Figure 3. Diagram showing the Pond Ripple Effect.

However, if a person or society had been driven only a short distance from Mesopotamia
and had sufficient ability to take many of their cultural niceties with them, such
as the implements and tools for metal making and metal culture, then they would
possibly be able to enjoy culture from a much earlier time. This would result in
the later excavation of a Chalcolithic type of culture. It would, of course, be
assumed to be later than the Paleolithic hunter/gatherer society or the Neolithic
farming society discovered in a more outlying region. However, this would not necessarily
be the case. The Paleolithic, Neolithic and Chalcolithic could well be contemporary,
and might simply be an indication of the different conditions and the different
environment and distance from the centre point available to each of the different
cultures. This may be illustrated as in Figure 3.

Further on it will be argued and demonstrated that there is evidence in Mesopotamia
and the Middle East that such cultures as Chalcolithic and Neolithic existed side
by side, and, therefore, there needs to be a radical re-evaluation of the presently
held serial arrangement of the Middle Eastern cultures.

The mushroom effect.

Presently held in Mesopotamian chronology is the idea that the majority of the five
great Chalcolithic cultures of Mesopotamia were not contemporary with one another
but knew a serial arrangement.

This concept again appeals to proponents of evolutionary theory, but is not necessarily
supported by hard evidence. The mushroom effect here proposed allows both a horizontal
and a vertical or serial evaluation of a culture to be made. As a civilization grows,
it will gradually overflow into other areas by either trade, migration or conquest,
or a combination of these.

Details will be presented to suggest that most of the Chalcolithic cultures of Mesopotamia
were in fact contemporary in their earliest periods, but mushroomed under different
conditions at different times, thus allowing a possible serial arrangement in vertical
perspective for each of these cultures in turn (see Figures 4 and 5).

Historians in the past have emphasized the serial or vertical mushrooming aspect
of this without giving due recognition to the horizontal or contemporaneous aspect
of such civilizations. This, of course, was implicit in their evolutionary theory
and would tend to bias their understanding and allow them to overlook it.

Application to data.

Halaf-Neolithic 4.

In 1982, under the title 'A Four-Stage Sequence for the Levantine Neolithic', Andrew
M.T. Moore presented evidence to show that the fourth stage of the Syrian Neolithic
was in fact usurped by the Halaf Chalcolithic culture of Northern Mesopotamia, and
that this particular Chalcolithic culture was contemporary with the Neolithic IV
of Palestine and Lebanon.5:25

This was very significant, especially as the phase of Halaf culture so embodied
was a late phase of the Halaf Chalcolithic culture of Mesopotamia, implying some
degree of contemporaneity of the earlier part of Chalcolithic Mesopotamia with the
early part of the Neolithic of Palestine, Lebanon and Syria, as illustrated in Figure
6.

This finding was not a theory but a fact, slowly and very cautiously realized, but
devastating in its effect upon the presently held developmental history of the ancient
world. This being the case, and bearing in mind the impossibility of absolute dating
by any scientific means despite the claims to the contrary, the door is opened very
wide for the possible acceptance of the complete contemporaneity of the whole of
the Chalcolithic of Mesopotamia with the whole of the Neolithic and
Chalcolithic of Palestine. (The last period of the Chalcolithic of Palestine is
seen to be contemporary with the last Chalcolithic period of Mesopotamia.)

Cultures of Mesopotamia seem to come into life fully developed, at least in so far
as southern Mesopotamia is concerned. Evidence for the Neolithic is very scanty
in that part of the country between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, yet the further
we go out from this centre, whether it be into Palestine or up into the Zagros Mountains,
we come to apparently increasing 'primitiveness' of cultural type, a condition that
at once may be seen to be pictured in the pond ripple effect previously discussed.
What we need to determine, however, is the following:

whether hard evidence above and beyond the previously developed data can be brought
to bear to show the contemporaneity of other periods not yet discussed,

whether the strata levels in which some of these supposed primitive cultures are
found are consistent with short periods of time,

whether a mechanism is available for rapid build-up at times of rather deep strata
layers, and

whether we stand on solid scientific ground to back such interpretation of short
periods rather than the long periods of time presently proposed.

This problem is most acute when we come to the caves of Palestine and the Zagros
Mountains, which show great evidence of deep burying of artifactual material within
those cave sites. Here is a situation that has given the evolutionists some courage
to assume long periods of time. This, however, need not be the case.

Let us then look for this evidence, examine it, and then attempt to re-write the
history of the stone age period in terms of the known biblical chronology.

This author is not the only one who has suggested the possibility of contemporary
cultures for some of the periods previously thought to be serial in Mesopotamia.
Joan Oates raised this very possibility with regard to some of the early Chalcolithic
cultures of Mesopotamia:

‘Although our present evidence is insufficient, it seems to suggest that Hassuna
preceded Samarra (whether or not the latter is considered a separate assemblage)
throughout Assyria and in the Samarra area, but we must not lose sight of the possibility
that Hassuna, Samarra, and Halaf may all prove to be local and perhaps even
contemporary adaptations.’6(emphasis
ours)

Halaf Polychrome Ubaid II, Samarra.

There is yet more evidence to suggest many of these cultures were contemporary,
particularly with regard to the Chalcolithic of Mesopotamia. For instance, Jasim7 presents evidence from the excavations
at Tel Abada to show that this was in fact the case with regard to Ubaid II, Samarra
and Halaf. The Halaf here, of course, is the Polychrome culture of late Halaf and
is the same culture that is known to have penetrated Syria to replace the Neolithic
IV there.5

So we can see a contemporaneity of Samarra, Ubaid II, Halaf (late) and Neolithic
IV of Palestine. This is hard evidence from excavations that cannot be lightly dismissed
and almost certainly speaks of contemporary cultures (Figure 7).

The biblical model of contemporary cultures differing in their material culture,
and thus allowing Neolithic and Chalcolithic type cultures to co-exist, is also
a significant model to explain the great difficulties surrounding the city of Jericho.

Jericho Neolithic - Ghassul Chalcolithic.

Robert North8 discusses an apparent 300-year gap at Jericho between the Proto-Urban
and Early Bronze cultures. The Proto-Urban is described by different investigators
in different terms, by some as Late Neolithic, by others as Chalcolithic of various
stages. Certain features of Jericho culture during the Proto Urban or Level VIII
(Garstang) reflects Chalcolithic, related to the Chalcolithic at Ghassul. However,
the features are few enough to allow the majority of excavators to feel that the
Jericho Proto Urban culture is still Neolithic in type, and so a gap of some 300
years, resulting from the old evolutionary scale used, has to be inserted between
the end of Proto-Urban and Early Bronze I in Jericho, not so much on solid evidence
of such a gap, but simply because of the rigid evolutionary terminology. The biblical
model, however, not only shortens the time of the necessary gap, if such ever occurred,
but also allows a still conservative Neolithic type of culture in Jericho to subsist
beside a progressive Chalcolithic culture across the Jordan at Ghassul.

The possibility of contemporaneity was slightly broached by Robert North when he
says:

‘From the very start, however, certain remote or rare similarities to Ghassul
in the Pre-bronze Sultan materials have been noticed, always leaving open the chance
that Ghassul could be a contemporaneous local variation due to
immigrants.’8:66

He finishes with the statement:

‘In any case Ghassul-Jericho comparison confronts us with an enigma
still unsolved despite persistent efforts: in face of which there is need of bold
innovating scientific hypotheses.’8:66

The biblical model is, in fact, the only reasonable 'bold innovating scientific
hypothesis' that will satisfy the demands of this region. I conclude that it is
reasonable to suppose that there was no considerable gap between Proto-Urban at
Jericho and Early Bronze I, but rather that a conservative Jericho culture did in
fact subsist beside a progressing Chalcolithic Ghassul culture across the Jordan
River, with a different people in a different place, but at the same time.

The problem with such data as this is that the rigid evolutionary terminology does
not facilitate easy bending to allow its adherents freedom to see such cultures
as Neolithic and Chalcolithic as contemporary.

We find then, sufficient evidence to hold in question the rigid evolutionary sequential
framework of Neolithic to Chalcolithic that has been held for so long. Evidence
has been presented to show that there is contemporaneity of previously claimed sequential
Chalcolithic periods, and also contemporaneity between Chalcolithic periods on one
hand and Neolithic on the other, certainly in Syria, and possibly also in Jericho
and the Jordan Valley. If such is the case, then we have reason to call into question
the long time periods and the sequential arrangement of other cultures from Paleolithic
right through to the end of the Chalcolithic in the whole of the Middle East. It
is much more reasonable to propose a model embracing the 'pond ripple' and 'mushroom
effect' (referred to above) against the background of the biblical chronology, which
even to this day remains the only written record of claimed history of this period.

Deep strata - how long?

The question, however, may be asked: What about the deep layers and numerous strata
concerning the so-called Paleolithic of Palestine found in such places as the Carmel
Caves? In order to answer such a question we have to look at two other major questions
first:

the climate, and

the rate of sediment build-up.

It will be proposed here

that the climate in the early post-Flood earth around the Middle East was in fact
much wetter and far more forested than it is today, making a considerable difference
to the sediment build-up, the disintegration of stone material, perhaps even the
tool types used by the inhabitants, and certainly their manner of life; and

that sediment build-up was in fact much faster than is claimed today, particularly
bearing in mind the weather conditions.

A wet middle east and heavy strata build-up

The biblical model implies that there would have been much more water left over
in land basins as a result of the great Flood than would necessarily be present
today, and so we would look for evidence of large lake-like accumulations in such
possible basin areas. The biblical model certainly does not insist on any particular
weather conditions immediately after the Flood, but wet conditions would certainly
be logical in God's planning for the habitation of the post-Flood earth, and would
be logical in terms of the necessary rapid build-up of plant and animal life again
after the Flood. As a result of the Flood, there would have been much salt left
on the land, so wet conditions would have caused a washing off of some of this salt
from the land and a faster ability of non-salt-loving plants to grow adequately,
allowing for quick afforestation, an abundance of plant life, and hence a multiplication
of animal life after the great Flood. Wet conditions would have increased the breakdown
of mud-brick buildings, increasing therefore the build-up of strata in tells during
the early days in the Middle East and causing more rapid build-up in caves, particularly
in dolomite and limestone caves.

There is strong evidence for a very wet climate in the Middle East and for left-over
basins of water over many areas of the Middle East in the early days which the biblical
model would allow to be called post-Flood, but which the evolutionary model would
call the stone age.

Palestine in those early days showed evidence of great areas of water, particularly
filling in the north of the Huleh Basin:

‘It is currently accepted that during the period of Acheulean occupation of
the north-eastern tip of Upper Galilee, a large lake filled the entire Huleh Basin
while the mountains were covered by oak forests incorporating several northern elements.
such as Fagus. The surroundings were rich in various animals, including
a number of large species. The Acheulean site was apparently located close to the
ancient lake, in the vicinity of streams descending from the Hermon (Stekelis and
Gilead, 1966; Nir and Bar-Yosef, 1976; Horowitz 1975-1977).’9

Also in south-central Sinai:

‘Strikingly thick accumulations of sediments occur in Wadi Feiran and its
tributaries in south central Sinai (Fig. 1). Over the past three decades these have
been the subject of discussion with reference to their origin (fluvial verses
lacustrine) and their climatological and chronological significance.
In this note we describe an in situ Upper Paleolithic site, the
first known from south central Sinai, which places these deposits in a firmer chronological
context of about 30,000 to 35,000 B.P. and lends support to previous climatological
interpretations of a former wetter climate.'’10:185

And:

‘Nevertheless, the widespread occurrence of Upper Paleolithic sites throughout
the central Negev and down to the very arid southern Sinai would suggest a regionally
wet climate, which enabled the Upper Paleolithic people to exploit an area which
today is hyper-arid.’10:189

Furthermore, in east Jordan:

‘Briefly, the stratification in the north, west, and south trenches reflects
the existence of a Pleistocene pluvial lake that shrank until a widespread marsh
formed during the Early Neolithic.’11:28

And again:

‘During the Late Acheulian period of the Late Pleistocene, the scene around
Ain el-Assad was quite different: an immense lake, roughly five times the size of
the present Dead Sea (Rollefson 1982; Garrard and Price 1977) stretched to the northern,
eastern, and southern horizons. Once again, animals would have been attracted to
the lakeshore, yielding opportunities for Neanderthal hunters to fulfill their needs.’11:33,34

Similarly, Alison Betts has suggested that in the Black Desert just close to the
same area in eastern Jordan there was once lush growth and a large population of
animals:

‘As far as hunting is concerned, the desert once supported large herds of
game, particularly gazelle, and evidence for the wholesale exploitation of these
herds is demonstrated by the complex chains of desert 'kites' lying across what
were once probably migration routes.’12

In Egypt also, wet conditions prevailed:

‘Naqada I and II are very remote times, and it is now known that conditions
in Egypt were then completely different from what they are today. At Armant, for
instance, south of Luxor, large trees had been growing sparsely all over the low
desert at a height of 20 or more feet above the present cultivation level and, therefore,
probably about 40 feet above in pre-Dynastic times. The workmen told Mr. Myers that
trees like this were to be found in every part of the Nile Valley. Some of these
trees at any rate were earlier than either the Late or the Middle pre-Dynastic periods,
for graves of these dates had been cut through their roots. Again, a small Wadi
had been silted up and trees had been growing in it. This was all on the low desert,
and similar wet conditions are found to have prevailed on the high.’13

The testimony seems uniform that in those early days, by whatever scheme they may
be dated, conditions were wetter and large areas of water-filled geographical basins,
a picture that is thoroughly consistent with the biblical model.

Wet conditions and afforestation may well be one of the explanations for the earliest
type of culture found in many parts of the Middle East and Europe, that is the Acheulian,
the most characteristic tool of which was the hand-axe. The need to clear land,
to chop trees, and to build shelter from wet conditions, as well as to shape tools
such as spears for hunting in that early survival culture, may well explain the
ubiquity of the Acheulian hand-axe, a fairly basic tool. But then, the conditions
also were very basic, and survival was the name of the game.

The wet conditions may also explain the very large number of stone-age, particularly
Neolithic strata, in such places as Mersin, Catal Huyuk and Jericho, where the main
building materials were sun-dried mud bricks. In north-eastern Iraq the Jarmo expedition
found that the average expectation for a 'casually built house with some dried mud
bricks and mud finished roof' was only 15 years.14
In much wetter conditions of earlier days the life of a building may well have been
considerably shorter, even half that time, making rapid build up of strata with
rebuilding of levels in tells a very highly likely proposition.

Furthermore, the deep layers found in some of the caves, such as the Carmel Caves,
which are dolomite, may well be explained by the wetter conditions which would give
rise to the more rapid breakdown of rock from the roof. Such cave-ins, which were
evident in some of the Carmel Caves, along with the increased trampling in of soil,
dirt and mud as the people came home from hunting, would have led to a rapid build-up
of strata in such caves. It is impossible at this point in time to give an accurate
assessment of the time taken for the build-up of these strata. Long periods of time
that have artificially been assigned to them simply cannot be sustained on any present
evidence. For these reasons, the biblical model stands as a reasonably good scientific
model on which to test the evidence.

New regional models for the stone age

Palestine

The following cultures are recognised for the stone age of Palestine,

The Lower Paleolithic - Acheulean.

The Middle Paleolithic - Mousterian.

The Upper Paleolithic - Aurignacian.

The Epi Paleolithic, sometimes called Mesolithic.

Kebaran culture

Natufian culture

The Neolithic.

Neolithic (1) or Pre Pottery Neolithic - A (PPNA)

Neolithic (2) or Pre Pottery Neolithic - B (PPNB)

Neolithic (3) or Pottery Neolithic - A (PNA)

Neolithic (4) or Pottery Neolithic - B (PNB)

The Chacolithic.

Wadi Rabah culture

Esdraelon culture

Ghassulian culture

Here rejected are the long time periods assigned to these cultures, but let us look
further at them:

Acheulean

The characteristic feature of this culture was, of course, the large hand axe prominent
in it. Comment has already been made about the possible relationship between the
virgin forests, an early spreading people, and the necessity to use hand-axes in
much of their culture. The widespread common relationship of these tools in Europe,
Asia and Northern Africa certainly is not inconsistent with the biblical model of
the recent origin of the spread of people from the Middle East into diverse places
having initially similar cultures.

There does seem to be a definite stratigraphic relationship between the so-called
Paleolithic strata - Acheulian, Mousterian and Aurignacian in ascending order. This,
however, does not indicate that they were cultures that succeeded one another all
over the country, but the principle of mushrooming may legitimately be investigated
here as in the Mesopotamian Chalcolithic. In other words, the superposition of one
stratum on the other may only be a measurement of the cultures in one dimension.
It fails to come to terms with the possible horizontal contemporaneity of at least
the last two of these cultures, the Mousterian and the Aurignacian.

The Augrignacian seems to have at least a superficial relationship to the later
Kabaran culture. In the caves of Mount Carmel, the Kebaran and the Aurignacian seem
to be geographically related.15
This possible relationship is worthy of further investigation. Thus when we get
to the Epipaleolithic or Mesolithic we find a horizontal relationship at least a
possiblity. Different geographical areas are indicated on the whole for these two
cultures:

‘The Kebarans were based predominantly in the coastal plain making seasonal
penetrations into the mountainous areas to supplement their subsistence.’16

And further:

‘When Natufian sites are plotted on a soil map of Palestine they are seen
to coincide with the distribution of the Terra Rossa and the isohytes
of 800 to 400 mm (Fig.1.) These settlements were base camps where remnants of structures,
heavy grinding tools, burials and numerous sickle blades are found.’16

Kebaran - Natufian.

Kebaran culture seems to have been a less vigorous culture than Natufian and may
have been overwhelmed by the latter.

Neolithic.

Neolithic (1) or Pre Pottery Neolithic A of Palestine appears to have been very
much the same as the Mesolithic Natufian culture. This is apparent at Jericho from
Kenyon's excavations.

Chalcolithic

A case has already been made for the Ghassul culture to have been Amorite (see 'The
Times of Abraham', this volume). Furthermore, it may well have been in Canaan during
the Late Neolithic, as suggested by North (Jordan I),8

One thing is clear from the biblical model; all the Stone Age inhabitants of Palestine,
unless they happened to be transient cultures passing through to other lands, should
be grouped under the label 'Canaanite' according to the biblical tradition of Genesis
10.

A further suggested identification is here made, that is, to equate the most dominant
archaeological culture in Palestine of this era, namely, Natufian - PPNA-PPNB (suggestion
of continuity after Moore5:16-23), with the Bible's most widespread southern groups
- the Hivites (see Genesis 36:2,20; 14:6 Horites = Hivites; also later in Palestine,
Genesis 34:2).

PNA appears to be from the north and may indicate a Hittite influence (Genesis 15:20
and 25:9), or the same may be speculated of Proto-Urban Jericho (equivalent to Chalcolithic
- see North8) who had rock cut tombs.17:273

It is, however, freely admitted that the last two attempted reconciliations are
tenuous and speculative for the most part, but worth investigating.

PNA appears to have arrived from the north; as did Proto-Urban Jericho.

We have then several major influxes or migratory waves:-

Acheulean

Natufian

PNA

Proto-Urban

Ghassul

All are considered to be Canaanite (see Figure 8). For this period the Bible allows
from Babel to Abraham (in Canaan), that is, from 2,200 B.C. to 1870 B.C. or 330
years (see 'The Times of Abraham', this volume).

An overlap of several of these phases is strongly suggested. As Kenyon has stated:

‘In trying to fit into place the cultures these communities represent, we
should learn a lesson from the progress of research in European prehistory. Earlier
European scholars tried to place each culture observed into a regular sequence.
Now it is recognised that many cultures represent regional developments, and several
may have existed side by side. The older sequence-method tended to produce very
inflated chronologies, which have had to be considerably reduced now that the picture
has become more coherent. This we should bear in mind in trying to piece together
the jigsaw puzzle which our present state of knowledge in Palestine represents,
and in fact some of the new pieces of the jigsaw which almost every year emerge
from the ground do suggest that the whole picture will eventually portray a number
of groups of people living side by side each with their own distinctive culture,
but with just enough links with other groups to suggest contemporaneity.’17:69,70

In time even the above conservative table (Figure 8) may have to be considerably
telescoped down.

The Model: A Preliminary Hypothesis

From the dispersion of Babel into the virgin forested lands of Palestine came the
families of Canaan - Genesis 10:15-19. The initial number of families is unknown,
but they are represented culturally by the Palestinian Acheulean artifacts.

Their culture was consciously adapted to their new environment of heavily forested
country and wet climate with large lakes in land basins, much of the water being
left-over from the great Flood. The wet climate would have produced heavy sedimentation
of the open land and friable conditions in many caves, which nonetheless were good
protection from the climate.

From the Acheulian background two different developments came - the Mousterian and
Aurignacian of Palestine. At Carmel the Mousterian shelters suffered collapse, possibly
from earthquake,15:176 ending Mousterian habitation in them. Geographically at least,
the Aurignacian appears to have given rise to Kebaran culture.

The Natufian appears to have been invasive, probably from the north, but possibly
having a memory of a riverine background:

‘All that may be said at present is that the Natufian settlers came from an
Alluvial environment and brought with them a tradition of building in clay or pise.’18

Moore affirms that Natufian to PPNA then PPNB formed one cultural continuity.

A new invasion from the north came with the PNA culture, continuous with PNB. But
against the biblical model, this also must have been a Canaanite culture,5:23
as was all before it.

Proto-Urban possibly followed, contemporary with Ghassulian culture (North8) and
possibly had a relationship with the Esdraelon culture of the North Palestine area.
But with it came rock-hewn tomb burials, suggesting a possible connection with the
Hittites of Genesis 23:9.

We seem to be on surer ground when identifying Ghassul with the Amorites (see 'The
Times of Abraham', this volume), a wave of Canaanites which came down through southern
Syria. They were perhaps related to the defunct Hassuna culture driven out by Halafian
expansion, which enveloped Hassuna and Syria, and more particularly, Aram-Naharaim.

Egypt

'Prehistoric' cultures of Egypt are:-

Paleolithic

Neolithic

Chalcolithic

Naqada I (Amratian)

Naqada II (Gerzean)

A case has already been made for a wet early Egypt, with wetter conditions thus
over the whole of Africa, bringing greater flood and silt deposits into the Nile
Valley, which buried Paleolithic artifacts in deep silt - all an illusion of a long
time period.

The Bible makes it clear that Egyptian culture arose from the family of Mizraim
and his sons (Genesis 10:13-14):-

Ludim

Anamim

Lehabim

Naphtuhim

Pathrusim

Casluhim - from whom came the Philistines

Caphtorim - from whom came the Philistines also.

Egypt thus was from its very beginnings a tribal nation, suggesting multiple dynasts
right from the start. The Pathrusim are remembered in southern
Pathros, while the Caphtorim appear to have settled in the northern
coastland areas (see 'The Times of Abraham', this volume). The name Lehabim
is said by some to be the origin of the name of Libya. If that
be so, his descendants will have settled in the west.

The Egyptian language itself is considered to have had a common ancestor with the
Semitic languages, and not to have been derived from it.19:193

This is, of course, close to the biblical model.

Egypt was a corridor for the movement of people into Africa after the crisis of
Babel. This multitude of cultures should be reflected in the earliest times, is
dated by the biblical model to approximately fifty years after Babel at approximately
2150 B.C., and later. On the evolutionary chronology this period would most likely
be called Paleolithic.

Figure 9. Map illustrating Egyptian sites.

Clarke says:

‘Between the close of the Pleistocene and the introduction of domestication,
somewhere between about five thousand and three thousand two hundred B.C., an
extremely interesting situation existed in the Nile Valley. We find here a mosaic
of cultural traditions which preserved their individuality in the face of the opportunity
for interaction and free exchange of ideas’19:169(emphasis
ours)

Egypt was early recognised as two nations - lower (north) and upper (south) Egypt.
Upper Egypt was known as Paphros, perhaps a derivative from Mizraim's son Pathrusim.
The dominant northern name appears to have been Caphtorim.

Remains of farming/pottery-making communities belonging to those early days have
been found in Egypt. These were the Neolithic communities. Three important ones
are here mentioned. In the north 30 miles north-west of Cairo was Merimda - Beni
Salama (see Figure 9), a village community dwelling in reed huts. They stored grain
in straw and clay silos and appear to have had goats, sheep, pigs and cattle. This
appears to be culturally distinct from Neolithic Fayuma at Birket Karun further
south (Figure 9). These people were subsistence farmers who grew emmer wheat and
flax on the shores of the lake. Yet further south was the Tasian/Badarian culture
on the eastern bank of the Nile, exhibiting some of the finest pottery work ever
produced in the Nile Valley.

Contemporaneity of these three cultures is a reasonable proposition and on the bilbical
chronology would perhaps be dated at around 2100 B.C.-1950 B.C.

Clarke indicated a direct transition from Neolithic to Chalcolithic : Following
this Neolithic 'period' we talk of the pre-Dynastic period or Chalcolithic, which
is divided into two stages/cultures:-

Naqada I or Amratian (from El Amra in the South - see Figure 9)

Naqada II or Gerzean (from Gerza in the North - see Figure 9)

These and the preceding Badarian have been found in a stratified context indicating
a local sequence.20:391 This does
not, however, rule out spatial contemporaneity (see the earlier discussion of the
mushroom effect).

The supersedure of Gerzean culture seems to indicate a pre-Dynastic Northern dominance.21 It would be against this that
the South fought in the wars that finally led to unification and the Dynastic history
of Egypt, firstly under Scorpion then under Narmer, and then under Menes/Hor-aha.
Narmer was apparently late Gerzean - Chalcolithic, and was contempory with Arad
I,22 or the end of Ghassul IV in
Palestine, the end of which has before been dated at around 1870 B.C. during the
days of Abraham.

Diagrammatically the model we outlined for Egypt can be summarised as in Figure
10. Note also that it was from the northern Chalcolithic of Egypt that the Philistine
phenomenon came (see 'The Times of Abraham', this volume).

Mesopotamia

The earliest cultures of the alluvial plains of Mesopotamia are Chalcolithic in
nature, with an early suggestion of Neolithic at Hassuna. These earliest cultures
were:-

Hassuna in the north contemporary with Samarra along the middle Tigris,

Halaf in the north,

Ubaid in the south,

Uruk in the south, and

Uruk - Jemdat Nasr in south.

affecting the north.

The Hassuna culture had affinities with Palestine and Cilicia (early Canaanite areas)
in its archaic pottery. Georges Roux says:

‘This archaic painted pottery apparently originated in Syria-Palestine
and spread eastwards. Samples of it have been found as far away from
Hassuna as Jericho and Megiddo in Palestine. Here is therefore positive evidence
of a community of culture in the whole area of the 'Fertile Crescent' from the
Dead Sea to the Tigris, with a main focus along the Mediterranean.
Moreover, the skulls from Hassuna which have been studied belong, like the skulls
of Byblos and of Jericho, to 'a large toothed variety of the long-headed Mediterranean
race' and suggest an underlying unity of population. Yet the so-called Hassuna
standard ware predominant in levels IV to VI is peculiar to northern Iraq and seems
to be an essentially local product.’23:62(emphasis
ours)

Seton Lloyd and Tuad Sofar say of Mersin in Cilicia:

‘Perhaps the most interesting evidence in this respect is to be found in the
lower levels at Mersin. Here there is no very noticeable division between the pre-Halaf
painted pottery and what follows. Directly beneath the fortified village at Level
XVI (13.50 m.), in which Halaf pottery was found, there are 4 metres of settlements
characterized by crude-brick walls and rather primitive painted pottery in many
ways most surprisingly similar to our Hassuna archaic painted ware.’24:264

‘The similarity of the Hassuna archaic painted ware to the 'proto-chalcolithic'
pottery from Mersin (levels between 13.50 and 9.50 m.) has been mentioned elsewhere
(p.264).’24:279

‘The ware itself seems broadly similar to the earliest found at Jericho.
It is buff in colour with blackened core and a generous tempering of straw, which
when left on the surface, has disappeared. leaving impressions in the clay. The
surface outside is wet-smoothed, occasionally shows signs of a very slight burnish,
and is sometimes mottled with tiny cracks (Pl.XJII.1]. The tall-sided vessels usually
have a group of two or more 'nipple lugs' on either side just beneath the rim (Fig.
6:1,7,15,17). There are examples also of semicircular or horizontal 'knob-ledges'
(Fig.6:16) as in Jericho IX and one T-shaped ridge (Fig 6:16). Finally, there are
examples of a dent in the rim for pouring. Fig 6: 18: and of a hole just beneath
the rim, perhaps for the same purpose.’24:277

Suggestion has already been made to the possible ancestral link of Hassuna with
the Ghassulian/Amorite, a Halaf infIuence also being present. The culture was swamped
at Hassuna by the mushrooming Halaf culture (late-polychrome) - see Figure 5 again.
This burgeoning late-polychrome Halaf superseded the Hassuna culture with which
it was almost certainly contemporary in its earlier stages.

The Halaf culture dominated the Aram Naharaim area of Upper Mesopotamia, so it is
therefore here suggested that it be equated with the early Aramites of Genesis 10:23.
Their Halaf culture influenced areas of Palestine, west to Mersin, and eastward
across the Tigris River, mingling with the Samarran culture at Abada.

So Halaf is almost certainly the early Aramite people, their pottery appearing to
have a relationship to Samarra (? biblical Asshur) and Ubaid (biblical Chaldees).
As Roux says in discussing the 'Eridu ware':

‘They contained a painted pottery which, in the opinion of experts, closely
resembled the Hajj Muhammed pottery, but was also loosely related to the Halaf
and Sumarra wares. Clearly then, the site had been occupied long before
the Ubaid period began by a people somehow connected with the 'Halafians' in the
north’23:68

The Halaf culture was finally overwhelmed by an Ubaid 'invasion', known as northern
Ubaid (see Figure 5 again).

Ubaid was the first culture of Ur of the Chaldees and therefore may be linked to
the biblical Chaldeans of Genesis, the sons of Arphaxad from whom also the Hebrews
(and Abraham) came. Ubaid culture was strongest in the Eridu - Ur area, but affected
north-eastern Saudi Arabia.25 Ubaid
4 finally swept northward, dominating Sumer and northern Mesopotamia, and almost
certainly founding new cities such as Haran (a name which appears to be southern).

Historically such a cultural effusion makes it easy to understand the migration
and settlement in Haran of Terah and Abraham who followed only a short period later,
possibly during the following Uruk period or late northern Ubaid.

The Ubaid dominance was superseded by the Uruk period, a Sumerian dominance which
was to hold sway throughout the next four periods - the Uruk, Uruk/Jemdat Nasr,
Early Dynastic 1, 2, and 3, and Akkad - until the Amorite ascendancy. Uruk (biblical
Erech - Genesis- 10:8-10) was connected with the Cushite Nimrod and his descendants,
as here the 'black headed ones' almost certainly related to the other descentants
of Cush in Africa. From Uruk came the Sumerian language and the cuneiform script,
later to be mobilized for later languages such as Akkadian, Elamite, and Old Babylonian.

Finally, empire burst upon the ancient world with the Uruk - Jemdat Nasr hegemony,
whose influence was felt as far as Egypt and Cilicia (Mersin). Its identification
with the empire of Amraphel - Chedarlaomer of Genesis 14 has been discussed in 'The
Times of Abraham' (this volume). It was an empire over whose demise lingers the
name of Abraham (approximately 1870 B.C.).

Jemdat Nasr appears to have been a Sumerian outpost of the Elamite peoples and nation,
descendants of Shem - Genesis 10:22. Ghirshman comments of that time:

‘Uruk IV: a period of capital importance in the development of Mesopotamian
civilization, since towards its end came the invention of writing. Shortly afterwards,
during the last centuries before 3000 B.C., a civilization arose at Susa which,
though remaining under strong Mesopotamian influence, created its own writing, known
as 'proto-Elamite' (Fig. 16), and was contemporary with the Jamdat Nasr period of
the neighbouring plain.’26

Conclusion.

The model here presented covers the period of Babel until the incident in Abraham's
life with the Mesopotamian kings of Genesis 14. In secular history it covers the
whole stone age to the end of the Chalcolithic of Palestine (Ghassul IV), and equates
the biblical and secular records in time, viz. approximately 330 years.

The model begins with a catastrophe in Mesopotamia, that of Babel of Genesis 11,
and postulates two effects:-

A pond ripple spreading effect of cultures contemporary in time but different in
type.

A mushroom effect to explain the supersedure of otherwise contemporary cultures
which, when viewed in only one dimension, appear to be merely sequential cultures.

This model is then used as a base against which archaeological evidence is mustered
to show its veracity and right to be considered the true model of 'stone age' history.

It is admittedly a preliminary overview which needs much detailed regional elaboration.
It is because of the preliminary nature of this model for the 'stone age' that only
a brief archaeological overview of Egypt, Palestine and Mesopotamia during those
early years is allowed for here.